911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[fela fan]

Well i have to say that some of you are doing a good job in making dodgy things sound less dodgy. At least in the last couple of pages that i've read and been involved in, this thread has displayed a bit more debate rather than emotional bile that they usually descend into.

Y'see i can totally accept that the hijackers were who we're told they were, and i can accept what posters are saying here about the planes and how these hijackers would be able to fly them into the buildings.

Why, i can even just about accept the passport surviving, and do agree with the editor that either way, it has no real bearing on responsibility for the attacks.

So, since i've had two or three dodgy aspects satisfactorily dealt with (not saying i'm agreeing, just that i can agree!), i'm still left with what to me is the biggest problem in accepting the USG version of events.

And that is the vast array of intelligence they had leading up to that fateful day. Need i post up my favourite link? Will you all tell me they were suffering from intelligence fatigue? Let's now deal with this aspect of immense dodginess!

 

[fela fan]

Maybe not but you implied it by wittering on about the small target that the towers presented.

...

It really would be a whole load more civil if you could remove your rather sarcastic and disbelieving tone from your posts to me. I've been here long enough to demonstrate my honesty when debating.

Do note while i'm here, that i implied nothing, you inferred it. And there's a big difference.

 

[WouldBe]

It really would be a whole load more civil if you could remove your rather sarcastic and disbelieving tone from your posts to me. I've been here long enough to demonstrate my honesty when debating.

Do note while i'm here, that i implied nothing, you inferred it. And there's a big difference.

To get from say 18,000 feet down to less than 1000 feet and arriving at that height and at that width (of the tower) at exactly the right time seems to me a great feat of flying.

Here you are claiming it was a 'great feat of flying' yet on your second or third flying lesson you landed an aircraft, which I see no difference between the 2 acts.

If you want me to stop replying in a 'sarcastic and disbelieving tone' then stop posting drivel.

 

[sparticus]

it's not unusual for papers to survive major explosions - witness the streets full of papers after the WTC went down.

what major explosions? surely not explosions as in the explosions reported by firefighters and reporters

 

[editor]

what major explosions? surely not explosions as in the explosions reported by firefighters and reporters

Not this bollocks again.

Huge buildings explode when they're on fire. That's what they do. It's perfectly normal except in conspiraloon land where book-flogging halfwits dream up ludicrous theories about invisible operatives invisibly installing invisible explosions just in case, err, the two massive planes smashing into the buildings didn't do the job.

 

[TAE]

Clearly the demolition experts were on board the planes. After crashing into the buildings, they had more than enough time to setup the detonators.

 

[Jazzz]

Huge buildings explode when they're on fire.

evidence?

 

[brixtonvilla]

Wanker.

 

[editor]

evidence?

Why not try a small scale demo at home?

Get a load of construction materials, add live gas and electricity supplies, throw in lots of office equipment, boilers etc, set fire to the lot and see if you hear any explosions going on.

If you're so sure there'll be no explosions, be sure to stand right close to the flames.

 

[Jazzz]

Why not try a small scale demo at home?

Get a load of construction materials, add live gas and electricity supplies, throw in lots of office equipment, boilers etc, set fire to the lot and see if you hear any explosions going on.

If you're so sure there'll be no explosions, be sure to stand right close to the flames.

How facetious.

You would have no trouble asking me to back up such a blanket assertion with evidence - where's yours?

"Huge buildings explode when they're on fire. That's what they do. "

 

[Jazzz]

<abuse>

Post reported.

 

[editor]

You would have no trouble asking me to back up such a blanket assertion with evidence - where's yours?

"Huge buildings explode when they're on fire. That's what they do. "

So, let's get this right. You're saying that you'd expect there to be no explosions at all after a fuel laden jet plane has smashed into it one of the tallest buildings in the world at high speed?

Are we talking about life on the same planet here?

 

[Derian]

I voted 'other'.

Occam's razorfree

 

[brixtonvilla]

Report away, sunshine. I think I have enough evidence to back my claim...

 

[TAE]

Regarding the passport surviving:
http://investigate911.batcave.net/nose.html

Sorry about the webpage but it has the best footage I could find.

I do find it unlikely that anything made of paper could have survived that fireball.

(Besides ... why would he bother to carry his passport on an internal flight from which he never planned to return?)

In a sick and twisted way, it is also interesting how the fireball/debries made a shadow on the other tower.

 

[editor]

Regarding the passport surviving:
http://investigate911.batcave.net/nose.html

Sorry about the webpage but it has the best footage I could find.

Well, there's a reliable site.

"Is this a missile" it asks after showing Fox footage of the plane crashing into the towers.

Where do these morons come from?

 

[TAE]

I did say 'sorry' in advance.


Their crazy theory ignored, that fireball looks mighty fierce - hence my .. erm .. surprise, that the passport should have survived.

 

[pilchardman]

Is it too late to ask for an option in the poll saying "nothing"?

 

[editor]

Hell, why not!
I'll put it now, although I imagine most peeps are throughly bored with this thread now!

 

[Jazzz]

You may not have noticed that we were asking for it on the first page of thread

That's a fair request, maybe there are some posters for whom nothing seems amiss about the 9-11 narrative and they should be included in the poll options.

Perhaps a friendly mod could add the option in, in a mature fashion of course.

unsuprisingly, we didn't get the 'mature fashion' bit

 

[Jazzz]

So, let's get this right. You're saying that you'd expect there to be no explosions at all after a fuel laden jet plane has smashed into it one of the tallest buildings in the world at high speed?

Are we talking about life on the same planet here?

That's disingenous - the explosions at issue were reported not long before collapse time.

It appears that you have no evidence for your blanket assertion

Huge buildings explode when they're on fire. That's what they do.

 

[editor]

That's disingenous - the explosions at issue were reported not long before collapse time.

It appears that you have no evidence for your blanket assertion

FFS: you'll be asking for proof that the sun is hot next.

Here. Read and learn the fucking obvious, not that I doubt it'll make any difference to your increasingly reality-untroubled, conspiracy-obsessed mind:

Firefighters know that explosions happen suddenly and are unpredictable. They cannot be prevented during a fire. Explosions are a constant part of the firefighter's deadly uncontrolled work environment.
http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm

And here's a documented precedent for you (unless you're claiming that this building was also invisibly prewired with invisible explosives: )

Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building
A fire broke out on in the early morning hours of Sunday in Venezuela’s highest skyscraper, an important government building in downtown Caracas, destroying the top twenty of its fifty floors...
During the early morning hours, explosions could be heard as flammable material ignited as well as the explosion of windows that were reached by the fire.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1389

 

[pk]

That's disingenous - the explosions at issue were reported not long before collapse time.

It appears that you have no evidence for your blanket assertion

What in the name of Kenyan arsefly are you on about now, Jazzz?

Did you actually watch the TV that day?

There were all kinds of explosions, going on all the time... it's what happens when a plane spills a full tank of aviation fuel into heating ducts, elevator shafts, aircon systems.

We have all been through this before, and you were made to look like a complete twat.

Do you really need to even contribute to this thread?

Because they tend to benefit from your absence, Jazzz, I have to tell you.

 

[editor]

Jazz goes to a football match:

More here

 

[Jazzz]

FFS: you'll be asking for proof that the sun is hot next.

Here. Read and learn the fucking obvious, not that I doubt it'll make any difference to your increasingly reality-untroubled, conspiracy-obsessed mind:
And here's a documented precedent for you (unless you're claiming that this building was also invisibly prewired with invisible explosives

Interesting. From your first link (my highlighting)

Investigating Explosions
Many types of explosions occur at fires. Firefighters operate at manhole explosions, gas main explosions, flammable liquid and gas cylinder explosions, oil burner explosions, vehicle gas tank explosions, terrorist bomb explosions and smoke explosions. Four common explosions at structure fires are: 1.explosions caused by leaking gas piping, 2.BLEVEs of propane gas cylinders, 3.explosions caused by flammable vapor left over from an arsonist's accelerant and 4.bombs.

Before a fire investigator declares the cause of an explosion at a structure fire to be one of the above, a post-fire analysis must rule out all other possibilities. For example, if the gas piping is intact, if no ruptured propane cylinders are found and there are no traces of an accelerant flammable liquid residue or bomb fragments, then the explosion may be recorded as a smoke explosion (backdraft).

Strange, I don't think we have had a 'post-fire analysis' which has in any ruled out the possibility of bombs for the WTC - which is what many people heard. Nor does anything in this link imply that explosions are an inevitable consequences of a huge building being on fire, as you seemed to claim.

But well done finding an example of a skyscraper fire in which flammable material exploded. Didn't hurt, did it?

Let's note that that skyscraper burned for 17 hours - and was of course left standing!



That's the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid... (click for a larger picture) burned for over 24 hours didn't it? That was a REAL inferno... completely gutted.

Left standing.

By contrast the fires in the WTC burned for less than 90 minutes each, and in the South Tower, when it collapsed, we have no evidence of their being isolated pockets of fire, which the firemen were all set to put out given a long enough hose.

Yet they came down like a house of cards.

It's curious.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz goes to a football match:

<huge, faq-breaking image snipped>

I fear I have had to report this monstrous off-topic image. We get threatened with bans for this, dontcha know

 

[editor]

By contrast the fires in the WTC burned for less than 90 minutes each, and in the South Tower, when it collapsed, we have no evidence of their being isolated pockets of fire, which the firemen were all set to put out given a long enough hose.

Yet they came down like a house of cards.

It's curious.

Perhaps the slight matter of them being of an entirely different construction and hundreds of feet higher, and the trifling detail that they were smashed into by two fucking huge, fuel laden jet airliners at high speed may have just influenced the outcome by a teensy weensy smidgen, no?

 

[editor]

I fear I have had to report this monstrous off-topic image. We get threatened with bans for this, dontcha know

It's not "huge".
It weighs just 20k. The FAQ specifies 60k. So it's not even close to the limit.
You're losing your grip on reality with every passing day.

 

[editor]

And seeing as you're so fucking pathetic as to waste the mods time with actually reporting the post, I suggest you read this:

However, over-eager, over-sensitive or inappropriate use takes up valuable mods' time and can result in a ban

 

[Jazzz]

I am retiring for the night, after a game of scrabble or two. More tomorrow